Assessment of EoI: 292

Organization: Comptoir Juridique Junior (CJJ)



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 292 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: swamp forests, endemic and globally important BD

Evidence B:The two forest blocks under consideration by the project belong to the Congo Basin flooded forest that harbors a high level of biodiversity including some iconic species such as the Lowland Gorilla or the Forest Elephant.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: Swamp forest very important for C2

Evidence B:The Congo Basin flooded forest is of great importance for the sequestration of carbon.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: but it does not appear to be formal IPLC governance - which I assume is a key aspect of this project

Evidence B:The project proposal describes the two regions into consideration as managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: Well explained - for example cultural importance of lands, sacred groves and so forth and how the IPs actually use the BD (medicine, NTFPs)

Evidence B:The unique cultural significance of the areas to IPLC is very well explained with details that demonstrate the understanding of the cultural importance of the areas by the proponent.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: Commercial Logging and mining - key threats and will be important for project to really address. Given Covid - should be no more “bush meat” hunting - and should have alternatives. Trophy hunting - how can/will that benefit the IPs. Importance roads having EIAs that really take into account IPs

Evidence B:The main threats are constituted by commercial logging and mining operations, uncontrolled wood extraction by local operators and poaching and shifting agriculture conducted by local populations.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: No really clear IPLC policy support - policy support tends to be general - relating to SDGs and National Dev Strat

Evidence B:There are a couple of large scale initiatives that are already going on that are based on the management of the natural resources by IPLCs. The national legislation has a provision for the participation of IPLC in the management of traditional territories and the management the forest for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Some support through an EC project - but not clear

Evidence B:In the context of the existing large carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation initiatives the government of Congo is actively supporting IPLC led conservation.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: REal time community forest monitoring, there might be other projects but not clear from text

Evidence B:There are existing IPLC-led initiatives funded by international donors in the region under consideration by the proposed project that constitute a good foundation for scaling up.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: There are other projects in the area (WB-C2, CAFI) - but not clear how this project will related

Evidence B:The government of Congo has plans to develop more initiatives to prevent further deforestation to fight climate change. It is unclear if the approach of the government will fully integrate IPLC in the planning and the execution of the projects on the ground.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 22/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 23/30

Average Total Score: 22.5/30



Performance of EoI 292 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: But not clear how customary land rights will be recognized in practice. Also much of the proposed activities look more like capacity building - but for what. surely there should be a focus around governance and respect of their IPLCs

Evidence B:The objectives are to make sure that IPLC rights to manage their territories and managed the natural resources are clearly established, but it is unclear how well engaged the IPLC are in the context of this project that is largely NGO led.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 2/6

Evidence A: At present more a shopping list of Activities - and the ToC does not come across clearly

Evidence B:Advocacy and mapping activities are clearly described, by they are principally led by the proponent the is an NGO with he participation and for the benefit of the IPLC.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Securing the IPLCs is a key objective - but it is not clear how this will be achieved and what activities will be required to achieve (mapping, awareness, capacity, policy analysis, legal recognition, rights and responsibilities, and so forth)

Evidence B:How much lead the IPLC will have in the context ion the project implementation is unclear. IPLC are presented more like beneficiaries than true participants.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: Partially aligned - but key area of securing land and management rights not clear

Evidence B:The budget presented by the proponent shows that 75% of it would be devoted to the functioning of the NGO with staff traveling for the capital city. This project may benefit the IPLC at the end but is not designed for IPLC to play a significative active role.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: WB - but not sure of links. Importance of mobilizing community roles and what they will actually do (so not all depends on donor funds

Evidence B:Co-financing is so far very limited and speculative.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The improved management of the two forest areas under consideration would already be an important achievement. The ecosystem restoration objective seems to be overestimated.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: OK, but the key will be how these indicators will be measured- at present it looks as though it will be quite difficult

Evidence B:Securing land titles for IPLC seems to be the most concrete and significant objectives in the list provided.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: not really, sorry

Evidence B:There are some interesting elements presented in the project such as the sharing of the carbon revenues with IPLC as well as the training of local NGOs and capacity building in the field of legal issues of IPLC and NGO.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: but need to really link activity areas to national priorities more strongly

Evidence B:The EoL builds on and contributes clearly to the NBSAP.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: some gender activities (gender grid, income generation) but not in terms of real empowerment

Evidence B:The proponent has clearly integrated the gender issue in the proposal and concrete activities have been identified with measurable impacts.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: 1.5/5

Evidence A: Could be much clearer and stronger as to how lessons can be scaled up, how IPLC governance can be respected and recongized and so forth

Evidence B:The proposal is too much dependent on the capacity of the lead NGO and not enough building on the reinforcement of the capacity of the IPLC to be considered innovative or transformative.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 20/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 20/40

Average Total Score: 20/40



Performance of EoI 292 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: NA/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: Also has other IPLC partners

Evidence B:The IPLCs are marginal players in this project, They are mainly beneficiaries of activities initiated by a lead NGO with three modest local partners.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: networks, some funding from DfID and work with other groups and implement on the ground project

Evidence B:The demonstrated leadership is established at the macro level, but it is not sure if CJJ has a strong on the ground leadership in the two regions where they proposed to intervene. From the proposal it appears that CJJ would used this project to establish a base in the two proposed sites.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2.5/5

Evidence A: 4 groups and reasonably well defined roles

Evidence B:The role of IPLC in this project is vague and the local partners selected do not seem to have a strong capacity. The project is largely relying on the NGO’s capacity that is capital based.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: has to follow WB procedures

Evidence B:CJJ has a recognized capacity in the advocacy related to IPLC issues. How this capacity can be applied to the proposed project, transposed to the two areas under consideration and transferred to the IPLC and local organizations that are partnering with CJJ is unclear.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: World Bank procedures, at least 3 decent projects being implemented

Evidence B:CJJ has a demonstrated capacity to manage budgets from different sources.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: Not GEF standards - but seem to have experience with WB and DIFID safeguards

Evidence B:The proponent has experience with safeguards by no experience with the GEF



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 21/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 13/30

Average Total Score: 17/30



Performance of EoI 292 in Congo Basin - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)